Every child born in New England is taught the elements of secular knowledge without money and without price. Are the waters of earthly knowledge, then, so much more essential to the safety of the state than the waters of life, that we cannot risk the chance of leaving any child uninstructed in reading and writing, but may leave him untaught in the gospel? It would seem to be possible, since we have free schools, to have also free Churches, and so really to have, what we profess to maintain, _Public Worship_! There is no such thing now as public worship. The churches are not public places-each belongs to a private corporation of pew-holders.

It is possible to have a Church which shall consider it its duty to obey its Master's first command, and "preach the gospel to every creature." Its mission shall be to go out into the highways and the hedges, to seek and save the lost. It will regard the world as its field, and the whole community as its sphere of labor-the whole community, according to its needs, to be taught, helped, comforted, and cured by the gospel.

It is possible to have a Church which shall be united, not on ceremonies, nor on a creed, but on study and labor, on loving and doing. The condition of admission should be the purpose to get good and do good. They should enter this school to learn, and not because they were already learned; to become good, and not because they were already so.

It is possible to have a Church which shall make it its purpose to educate the whole man-spirit, soul, and body; and not merely the spirit; to present the human being to G.o.d perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

It is possible to have a Church which shall combine union and freedom. The Roman Church, aiming at union, and neglecting freedom, has a union which is no real union; which is an outward sh.e.l.l of conformity, without inward unity of heart and thought. The Protestant Church, desiring freedom and neglecting union, has a freedom which is not really freedom, being only the outward liberty of tolerated opinions, but one in which free thought is discouraged, and honest difference of opinion disallowed. Only by combining in a living whole such antagonist needs, can either of these be fully secured. Union without freedom is not union; freedom without union, not freedom. There is no harmony in the juxtaposition of similar notes, but in the concord of dissimilar ones. Difference without discord, variety in harmony, the unity of the spirit with diversity of the letter, difference of operation, but the same Lord, many members, but one body,-this is very desirable, and wholly possible.

The day is coming in which our dogmatic Churches, formal Churches, sentimentally pious Churches, and professedly liberal Churches, shall be all taken up into something higher and better. The very discontent which prevails everywhere announces it. It is the working of the leaven-mind agitating the ma.s.s. In Protestant countries there is a tendency to Rome; but in Roman Catholic countries an equal or greater tendency to Protestantism. Orthodoxy tends to Liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity tends to Orthodoxy. Each longs for its opposite, its supplement, its counterpart. It is a movement towards a larger liberty and a deeper life.

CHAPTER XVI. THE TRINITY.

-- 1. Definition of the Church Doctrine.

"The fundamental formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the Church," says Twesten,(72) "is, that in one divine essence or nature there are three persons, distinguished from each other by certain characteristics, and indivisibly partic.i.p.ating in that one nature." The "Augsburg Confession," says, in like manner, "three persons in one essence."(73) So the "Gallic Confession," and other Church Confessions, which say almost the same thing in the same words.(74)

The explanations given to these phrases vary indefinitely. Nitzsch (System d. Christ. Lehre, -- 80) says, "We stand related in such a way, with all our Christian experience (Gewerdensein und Werden), to the one, eternal, divine essence, who is love, that in the Son we adore love as mediating and speaking, in the spirit as fellowship and life, in the Father as source and origin." Schleiermacher considers this doctrine as not any immediate expression of the Christian consciousness, and declares that "our communion with Christ might be just the same if we knew nothing at all of this transcendent mystery." Hase says,(75) "This Church dogma always has floated between Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Sabellianism, a.s.serting the premises of all three, and denying their conclusions only by maintaining the opposite."

All sorts of ill.u.s.trations have been used from the earliest times-such as fountain, brook, river; root, stalk, branch; memory, understanding, will;(76) soul, reason, sense;(77) three persons in grammar, the teacher, the person spoken to, and that spoken of.(78) Some mystics argued the necessity of three persons in the Deity for the sake of a divine society and mutual love.(79) Lessing argues that "G.o.d from eternity must have contemplated that which is most perfect, but that is himself; but to contemplate with G.o.d, is to create; G.o.d's thought of himself, therefore, must be a being, but a divine being, that is, G.o.d, the Son G.o.d; but these two, G.o.d the thinker and G.o.d the thought, are in perfect divine harmony, and this harmony is the Spirit."(80) Leibnitz also considers the Trinity as ill.u.s.trated best by the process of reflection in the human mind.

Strauss objects to this cla.s.s of definitions, that they are two elements united in a third, while the Church doctrine requires three united in a fourth.

The Church doctrine concerning the Trinity appears most fully developed in its Orthodox form in what is called the Creed of St. Athanasius. It was not written by him, but by some one in the fifth or sixth century.

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things must take care to keep the Catholic faith:

2. Which except one keeps it entire and inviolate, he shall without doubt perish everlastingly.

3. But the Catholic faith is this: that we adore one G.o.d in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal.

7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father immeasurable,(81) the Son immeasurable, and the Holy Spirit immeasurable.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.

12. And so there are not _three_ uncreated, nor _three_ immeasurable, but _one_ uncreated, and _one_ immeasurable.

13. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.

14. And yet there are not _three_ omnipotents, but one omnipotent.

15. So the Father is G.o.d, the Son is G.o.d, and the Holy Spirit is G.o.d.

16. And yet there are not _three_ G.o.ds, but _one_ G.o.d.

17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.

18. And yet there are not _three_ Lords, but _one_ Lord.

19. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess of each one, that each person(82) is G.o.d and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion from saying three G.o.ds or three Lords.

20. The Father is not made, nor created, nor begotten.

21. The Son is from the Father alone; not made, nor created, _but begotten_.

22. The Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Father; not created, nor begotten, but _proceeding_.

23. Therefore there is one Father, and not three; one Son, and not three; one Holy Spirit, and not three.

24. And in this Trinity there is none before or after, none greater or less, but all three Persons are coeternal and coequal.

25. So that everywhere we must adore the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity.

26. Whoever, therefore, would be saved, must think thus of the Trinity.

-- 2. History of the Doctrine.

In the Christian Church, the history of this doctrine is interesting and important. Some sort of Triad, or Trinity, existed in very early times, although the Orthodox form was not established until later.

At first, the prevailing doctrine is that of subordination; that is, that the Son and the Spirit are inferior to the Father. But, as the Son and the Spirit were also called divine, those who thought thus were accused of believing in three G.o.ds.(83) Some then said, that the Father was alone divine; and these were called Monarchians. Others, wishing to retain the divinity of the Son and Spirit, and yet to believe in one G.o.d, said that the _divinity_ in the Father, in the Son, and in the Spirit, was essentially the same, but that the divinity of the Father was the fountain from which that of the Son and Spirit was derived. This was fixed as Orthodox at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, and was the beginning of Orthodoxy in the Church. It was a middle course between Scylla and Charybdis, which were represented on the one side by Arius, who maintained that the Son was created out of nothing; and by Sabellius on the other hand, who maintained that the Son was only a mode, manifestation, or name of G.o.d; G.o.d being called the Father, as Creator of the world; called Son, as Redeemer of the world; and Spirit, as Sanctifier of the world. The Council of Nice declared that the Son was not a manifestation of G.o.d, as Sabellius said, nor a creation by G.o.d, as Arius said, but a derivation from G.o.d.(84) Just as the essence of the fountain flows into the stream derived from it, so the essence of the Father flows into the Son, who is derived from him. Here, then, we have the three formulas of the early Church-that of Arius, who says, "The Son was created by the Father, and is inferior to him;" that of Sabellius, who says, "The Father, Son, and Spirit, are manifestations of G.o.d, and the same essence;" and Orthodoxy, as the Council of Nice, trying to stand between them, and saying, "The Son is derived from the Father, and is of the same essence with him."

The Church, ever since, has been like a ship beating against head winds between opposing sh.o.r.es. It has stood on one tack to avoid Arianism or Tritheism, till it finds itself running into Sabellianism; then it goes about, and stands away till it comes near Arianism or Tritheism again.

Unitarianism is on both sides: on one side in the form of one G.o.d, with a threefold manifestation of himself; on the other side in the form of a Supreme G.o.d, with the Son and Spirit subordinate. It has always been very hard to be Orthodox; for, to do so, one must distinguish the Persons, and yet not divide the substance, of the Deity. In keeping the three Persons distinctly separate, there was great danger of making three distinct G.o.ds.

On the other hand, if one tried to make the Unity distinct, there was danger that the Persons would grow shadowy, and disappear.

The heaviest charge against the Church doctrine of the Trinity is, that, driven to despair by these difficulties, it has at last made Orthodoxy consist, not in any sound belief, but only in sound phrases. It is not believing anything, but saying something, which now makes a man Orthodox.